Abstract
Purpose
To systematically review studies on various materials and methods used for wear testing of occlusal devices and their antagonists in vitro and in vivo.
Methods
An electronic search in OVID, Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus was conducted using the following terms (MeSH words) with any synonyms and closed terms: “Splint*” OR “occlusal splint*” OR “night guard” OR “occlusal device” OR “occlusal devices” OR “deprogrammer” OR “bite splint” OR “bite plane” OR “orthotic appliance*” OR “orthotic devices” AND “wear” OR “two‐body wear” OR “three‐body wear” OR “tooth wear” OR “wear measurement*” OR “wear behaviour” OR “wear behavior” OR “abrasion” AND “Polymethyl Methacrylate” OR “PMMA” OR “acrylic resin*” OR “dental material*” OR “dental enamel” OR “CAD” OR “CAM” OR “PEEK” OR “material* testing”. Database search was limited to English‐language publications and published between 2001 and 1st of September 2021. A further hand search was done to ensure all materials were captured.
Results
After the removal of duplicates, 115 studies were identified, and 11 were chosen for review. Studies showed that the lowest volumetric loss was observed in PEEK occlusal device materials, whereas heat‐cure, CAD‐milled, and 3D printed occlusal device materials had no significant difference in wear. Vacuum‐formed materials showed the highest wear among all groups. Testing parameters were found to be inconsistent across all studies.
Conclusion
There is a need for standardization of in vitro and in vivo wear measurement and testing protocols as this study revealed a wide variety of testing protocols which potentially could influence the outcome. Polishing procedures are required for the material. Limited studies are available on 3D printed occlusal device materials and would therefore require further investigation, especially on printing build angles and settings. Further clinical studies would be advantageous to provide guidance on the selection of the best occlusal device material that would last the longest without remake.